Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting Minutes

Southeast Regional Library
775 N. Greenfield Rd

April 18, 2001

COMMISSION PRESENT:

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff, Vice Chairman Joan Krueger, Commissioner Susan Preiss, Commissioner Stan Strom, Commissioner Dan Dodge, Alternate Commissioner Michael Monroe

STAFF PRESENT:

Planning Manager Maria Cadavid, Planning Manager Linda Edwards, Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks, Senior Planner Geir Sverdrup, Planner Dennis Newcombe, Planner Aruna Vasudev

ALSO PRESENT:

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab, Council Member Les Presmyk, Assistant Town Manager Tammy Ryal, Town Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward, Recorder Trasie Johns

I N D E X

PLANNER CASE PAGE VOTE

MR. NEWCOMBE GP01-1 2 APPR.
MR. NEWCOMBE Z01-1 2 APPR.
MR. FAIRBANKS GP01-2 4 DISCUSSION
MS. VASUDEV UP01-4 8 APPR.
MR. FAIRBANKS ULDC 10 APPR.

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. .

ROLL CALL:

Ms. Johns called roll and a quorum was determined to be present.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff requested approval of the agenda.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Susan Preiss to approve the agenda.

Motion Carried 6-0.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS:

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff announced that at this time members of the public may comment on items not on the agenda. He stated that the Commissionâ??s response is limited to responding to criticism, asking staff to review a matter commented upon or asking that the matter be put on a future agenda. He asked if anyone would like to speak.

Gerard Brokerhof, 14324 E. Buffalo Street came forward. He explained that he was representing a neighborhood that was opposed to the commercial designation located on the southeast corner of Lindsay and Williamsfield. He asked the Commission to look at the General Plan update regarding this issue and that the Staff was also not in favor of this change. The developer was citing a need for it based on a market standpoint. He felt that all their market needs had been refuted by Staff planners and neighbors in the area. Also, he asked the Commission to ask the developer to provide a full disclosure on previous actions on the same designated parcel. Mr. Brokerhof informed the Commission that there had been two attempts by the developer to make the change on this parcel. Both neighborhood meetings were met with great opposition. As a result, the developer withdrew his application for a rezoning, for the annexation and General Plan Amendment and then decided to work through the General Plan Update. He felt that from the impression that he got from previous conversations with the Commissioners that he spoke with that they werenâ??t aware of previous activity and public outcry against this. He concluded that he felt that this was deceptive on the developerâ??s part and therefore he wanted the Commission to be truly informed on their decision.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that he had a letter from Rob and Diane Collins regarding their opposition to this zoning change as well.

He asked if any other citizens would like to speak. No one came forward.

PUBLIC HEARING

GP01-1 â?? Amend the land use map of the Gilbertâ??s General Plan by changing the land use designation of an approximately 6.5 acre site located at the northwest corner of Higley and Pecos Roads from Low Density Residential (L) (0-3 Dwelling Units/Acre) to Community Commercial (C).

Z01-1 - Rezoning of approximately 1.5 acres from Maricopa County R-43 (Rural Residential) to C-1 (Light Commercial). The subject property is located north of the northwest corner of Higley and Pecos Roads.

Planner Dennis Newcombe asked that the first two items on the public hearing, GP01-1 and Z01-1 be heard together since they were related. He reminded the Commission that on April 4th they had the first discussion of the General Plan Amendment and the communication and concerns from that meeting were addressed in the Staff Report. He explained that this was a supporting use of this location since they already had five acres of that parcel zoned C-1. The southeast corner of that property had a ten-acre parcel that was zoned for C-2. The zoning was for 1.5 acres proposed for the overflow for the nursery stocks.

Planner Dennis Newcombe stated that Staff was in support of this item and the use on the main corner was being proposed for the most intense use. Additionally, he explained that the Design Review Board Staff would review the site plan and the Board would have to approve all development on this site, including the site plan and architectural features. The applicant was proposing to landscape as well as give twenty feet to private access easement to the north of the site. There was an existing twenty-two foot drive at that time. The applicant would also put up a wall and a fifteen-foot landscape buffer. He explained that they would have a total of 57â?? of buffer to the existing residential neighbors to the north. He handed out a small exhibit showing the proposed 1.5 acres. He explained that to the west of that property were vacant parcels. He explained that the original zoning case had two points of access off of Higley and Pecos, which would remain, and there would be no additional access points.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if the applicant had anything to add.

The applicant did not.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to speak on these items. No one came forward.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that he was in support of this case but he disagreed with point one of the conclusion. He didnâ??t think that the fact that this would make the site more marketable is a valid basis for the General Plan and that it wasnâ??t a supportive fact to arrive at these conclusions.

Planner Dennis Newcombe stated that this would increase the marketability because it made the property more developable.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that he had some very serious comments after what happened at the Town Council meeting. He referred to Exhibit A and stated that he would like to see the dimensions of the building and the setback. He wanted to also see the description of the building and how high it would be. In addition, he stated that the use of the property in the set back area looked like there was nothing, but he wanted to see it described so that five years from now the owners would understand that they were looking out for their interests on these items. He stated that he would also like the site plan to be made a part of the zoning file along with the Commission recommendation and the ordinance that goes to Council. Therefore, he concluded, there would be no question what that property could be used for and where the building could be placed on the property.

Rick Balch, 4720 South Ash Street, Tempe with NESCO came forward. He gave the Commission another exhibit.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that he would also like these exhibits to have dimensions on them.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab stated that there were various stages of development starting with the General Plan Amendment down to the site plan. There were certain things that must be set forth in a rezone ordinance if they were going to affect the development of the property that related to set backs, height and those issues. She explained that there were zoning districts in the ULDC that allowed for certain developments subject to certain requirements. In a site plan, the lay out and parking were addressed. Ms. Schwab stated that Chairman Karl Kohlhoff was correct in stating that you could put certain limitations in a rezone ordinance so long as it doesnâ??t violate the laws. She concluded in stated that once the rezoning was adopted, it allowed the property to be developed.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that the point was that it was C- 1 and anything could be allowed in this zoning designation. Since the owner was told it was going to be a nursery, he felt that they had an obligation to see that was what was put there.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab cautioned the Commission on requiring the building to be in a certain location as part of the rezone ordinance. She explained that if they were mandating where a certain building was going to be located, she felt they were pushing the bounds of their legal authority. However, she informed the Commission that setting set backs were perfectly appropriate.

Commissioner Dan Dodge reviewed the set backs and clarified what Chairman Karl Kohlhoff had said regarding the restrictions he wanted in the ordinance.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Susan Preiss, to approve GP01-01 subject to Staff stipulations.

Motion Carried 6-0.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Joan Krueger, seconded by Commissioner Dan Dodge, to approve Z01-01 subject to Staff stipulations, adding stipulation number six making the set back from the north property line to 60â?? and number 7 stating that the building was limited to single story.

Motion Carried 6-0.

Staff recommends approval of rezoning 1.5 acres, located north of the northwest corner of Pecos & Higley Roads, with the previously approved zoning (Z99-60) Pecos Commercial Center, subject to the following conditions:

The zoning for the project shall be C-1 (Light Commercial) P.A.D. as illustrated in the Development Plan. Said project shall be developed in conformance with the Townâ??s zoning requirements for said districts, except as modified by these Conditions and the Development Plan.

Stipulations, as approved by Town Council, from Z99-60 shall apply to the 1.5 acre parcel.

A 15â?? landscape buffer shall be provided on-site along the north property line inside the proposed masonry wall.

A 20â?? buffer shall be provided adjacent to the existing private access road with a minimum 10â?? of landscaping provided and maintained by the property owner.

A written agreement shall be submitted to the Town between the property owner and the existing residential properties regarding the use of the 20â?? buffer for expansion/maintenance of the private access road for use by the residential properties only, prior to final plat approval.

The building setback from the north property line shall be sixty (60â??) feet.

The buildings are limited to single story.

GP01-2 - Amend the Multi-Use Commercial (MC) land use designation to Medium High density (MH) residential, 4 â?? 8 residential units an acre, on 12 acres located approximately 550 feet south of the southeast corner of Claiborne Avenue and Baseline Road.

Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks stated that GP01-2 was a request by Sean Lake for KB Home for a General Plan amendment, to change the land use designation from the Multi-Use Commercial (MC) land use designation to Medium High Density Residential (MH), 4 â?? 8 residential units an acre, on approximately 12 acres located 550 feet south of the southeast corner of Claiborne Avenue and Baseline Road. This request would change the Townâ??s objective for development from intensive retail uses to single-family development with between 48-96 residential units on this site. He reminded the Commission that they discussed this item during a workshop in February.

Mr. Fairbanks used the visual aids to discuss the adjacent sites and explained that they were looking at 40 acres at the southwest corner of Higley and Baseline Road. He stated that there would be a Safeway Center at the corner. The adjacent development to the west was the Baseline Tone Residential subdivision with a mix of residential lot sizes. The upper portion was an R1-5 zoning district with 50â?? minimum width lots and the other part had 70â?? wide lots. To the south was a subdivision platted as Carriage Lane 10, which also had a mix of zoning districts. The area closest to the site was developed with 50â?? wide lots and transitions to the south into 70â?? wide lots. He further explained that in the southwest corner there were some larger lots that are ¼ to ½-acre lots. East of the site was a county parcel. He informed the Commission that the Staff has talked with a developer regarding a potential commercial development on that site and that it would require annexation. To the North was the Baseline 130 site, which had a tremendous number of office developments and retail developments. He stated that the plan for that development provided for 1.2 million square feet of office space and approximately 200, 000 square feet of retail space.

Mr. Fairbanks showed the master plan of the area and explained the two sites that Mariah Properties had met with the Town on and that they had current zoning applications on these sites which are in conformance with the General Plan. He stated that Staff was working with those developers now to bring forward those applications and the Commission would be seeing them in the next month. He showed the site that they were discussing and clarified that they were talking about a General Plan amendment. He stated that they were not approving the concept for the cluster development, but rather a General Plan policy that would encourage development of residential units in the four to eight units per acre range.

Mr. Fairbanks explained that this was the first of two public hearings for the neighborhood representatives that were there. This one was for discussion and the Commission would likely take a motion at the next Public Hearing scheduled for May 2nd. He explained that in terms of neighborhood compatibility, the 4-8 residential units an acre could be very compatible with the 50â?? wide lots to the south as well as the future retail development to the north and east. Mr, Fairbanks said that KB homes had presented a design concept that could nearly match the residential lots to the south in terms of lot width. He explained that this would help to create an appropriate transition between the residential development and the future commercial development to the north and east.

Mr. Fairbanks stated that in terms of the size and shape of the property that the rectangular shape of the property was acceptable. With this shape, they could provide for a centrally located amenity that would benefit the residents within the community. The size of the development would allow for a reasonable level of amenities within this development and would also allow for a homeowners association that would maintain the amenities. Nearby access to a regional trail system was also seen as a benefit. He showed on the visual aid that this property was approximately 1500 feet from the Eastern canal, which would provide regional trails through the Town.

In regards to signalization, Mr. Fairbanks explained that as part of the Staff report there was some discussion included from the neighborhood meeting. One of the issues that the neighborhood was concerned with this development was traffic generation and ingress and egress to Baseline Road. Based on the discussions with the Traffic Engineering Department, Traffic Engineering stated that there would be a full signal at Baseline and Claiborne Ave. Also, there may be a future signal at Houston Road. Neither of those signals existed now and would be pursued in the future. He explained that the Town would be charging impact fees on the development for these signal changes. He added that Bruce Ward, the Townâ??s Traffic Engineer, could provide more information on the potential timing of those facilities.

Mr. Fairbanks concluded by stating that this was the initial discussion on this item and they would be seeing it again at a future meeting. He asked for questions from the Commission.

Since there were no questions, Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked the applicant to come forward.

Sean Lake, 10 West Main Street, Mesa with K.B. Homes came forward. He explained that since Mr. Fairbanks explained the proposal so well, he wouldnâ??t duplicate what they had heard but wanted to explain the benefits of changing the General Plan designation from MC to MH. He stated that they were doing this based on several meetings with the neighbors to talk about the appropriate land uses with this property. He explained that after meeting with them and changing the plans based on their input they had come up with this plan that was filed with the Town. He felt that this plan was a good negotiated solutions with the neighbors that he felt the neighbors supported it.

Mr. Lake informed the Commission that they chose this plan based on a lot of factors. He explained that the design of the Safeway Center closed some doors for what this property could ultimately be developed into. He stated that they understood the Townâ??s goal was to maximize arterial frontages for retail uses and he thought that this design did this with these two zoning cases that have come forward. He explained that commercial could only be so deep, so there was would be a remnant site created with commercial frontages and the way the Safeway backed up to it. So, they had to decide what this property would be best suited for. In looking at the other commercial, industrial and apartments they felt like this property would be best utilized as residential. There wasnâ??t enough frontage for an office building and there was also enough office space in the area. With the neighborhood support, they felt this was the best use for this property. He concluded by asking for questions from the Commission.

No one on the Commission had a question.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff opened the Public Hearing. He stated that Ronald Boerst was in favor of the item but did not wish to speak.

Bob Giambelluco, 2859 E. Melvoy Land, Gilbert came forward. He asked for clarification on what the project was designed for. He stated that he and his neighbors had not been informed of this item, although the applicant said that he had neighborhood support. Although he didnâ??t live in the immediate subdivision to the west, he felt they should have been involved in these meetings. Claiborne was only a two-lane road and it leads into his subdivision. He felt that if more homes were added in this area there would be a huge traffic increase and problem. He showed where his home was located on the visual aid. He stated that he was upset that he didnâ??t have any knowledge of any previous meetings.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that the meeting was on August 15th and had 25 neighbors in attendance. The minutes didnâ??t refer to what neighborhoods were represented in this meeting. He explained that the neighbors that would have been notified would have been within 300â?? of the proposed site.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab clarified that notification is given within 300â?? of the site along with notices would have been given to the homeowners associations.

Bob Giambelluco stated that he received a letter for the meeting that evening, but couldnâ??t understand why they didnâ??t get the letter for the meeting in August.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff explained that the meeting that evening was only for input and that there would not be any decisions made. He stated that a decision would be made at the May 2nd meeting.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked Mr. Giambelluco what kind of a use he thought would be appropriate for this property.

Bob Giambelluco stated that he and his neighbors understood this property to be multi housing attached dwellings. His biggest concern was with the amount of traffic that would increase with this development. He wasnâ??t sure what kind of use would be appropriate, although he would love to have a nice park.

Richard Jones, 2931 E Melody Lane, Gilbert came forward. He showed the Commission where he lived on the map. He stated that his concern was the traffic because there was only one roadway in and out of the development. He also said that he didnâ??t feel like this was safe either. In the access to the canal, the people in the development would not have direct access to this path; they would need to travel through other neighborhoods.

Jeff Turnbow, 2906 E. Merrill Ave, Gilbert came forward. He stated that he was not in favor of the item. He showed his home on the map and explained that he bought his home four years ago. He said his concern was that he didnâ??t want to live by starter homes, that he lived in a large property and that they kept building smaller homes around him. He informed the Commission that he was afraid of his value of his home. He said he didnâ??t get any notice about the meetings, including the one that evening. He thought that a lot of the neighbors used the parks in his neighborhood that donâ??t belong in that area and he was concerned that more residents outside his development would be using his parks. He asked for more information on the development, including how many homes they were looking to put in and what their square footage would be. He concluded that his neighborhood was not in support of this development.

Judy Hulwani, 3146 E. Desert Lane, Gilbert came forward. She agreed with the neighbors who had just spoke and stated that none of her neighbors were in support of this development. She stated that no one in her neighborhood had been informed of any neighborhood meetings. She felt that although she was outside the 300â?? boundary, her neighborhood would be affected with this development and that they should have been informed. She was upset at the number of units that were proposed to go into this area. She asked for clarification on which neighborhood was in favor of this item. She stated that she would like a park in this area and that there was not an easy way for the proposed residents to get to the canal. She stated that she was also concerned about a traffic signal being so close to the one at Higley.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that this was a difficult site from Higley west because the canal was there. Because of White Fence Farms, Claiborne was the only collector north and south.

Judy Hulwani stated that on Claiborne, there was not enough room for one car to go down safely, much less two. She stated that they didnâ??t have the room and their schools couldnâ??t facilitate any more cluster homes. She added that they had just approved 368 unit apartments across Baseline and that they werenâ??t notified of this either since it was in Mesa. She concluded that they didnâ??t think they could handle 98 more units in that area. She asked for a list of the neighbors that were in support of this development.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that Sami Ayoub, 2990 E. Santa Rosa Dr., Gilbert did not wish to speak but was in favor of the item.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak on that item. No one came forward and he closed the public hearing.

Sean Lake apologized that the neighbors present werenâ??t included in the past meetings and informed them that he would make sure they had another meeting in which they were included prior to the Planning and Zoning meeting on May 2. He stated that he would address many of these issues that were unclear at the neighborhood meeting. He showed on the map who he felt was involved in the past meetings which were within the 300â?? boundary. He said that he posted these previous meetings.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff informed the public that they were just discussing a General Plan amendment and that the applicant would still need to rezone the site and address the Commission at the May 2 meeting. He asked the applicant to give the set back between the buildings and the proposed residential site and what the landscaping would include.

Commissioner Stan Strom asked if Mr. Lake had the map for the circulation for the 40 acres that was conceptually zoned the first time the Safeway came through. He asked to see this map if he had it.

Sean Lake put another area map up for the Commission to see.

Commissioner Stan Strom stated that he had been on the Commission for six or seven years and that this was a point of a lot of discussions when Safeway went in. He stated that the Tones owned that whole 80 acre section down Guadalupe. He stated that the neighbors in the Silverado development did not want a lot of traffic up into their neighborhood. When the Safeway went in, there was a conceptual site plan on the whole area including a traffic circulation pattern that was approved by the Town Traffic Engineer. The Commission and the Council approved that whole 40-acre parcel. He stated that the whole parcel was in the General Plan as Multi-Use Commercial, which was the highest intensity of commercial in the Town. He explained that the reason it was buffered by R1-5 was because these were the smallest lots that could be put next to a proposed subdivision. There was a whole road that would have brought the traffic and diffused it between the commercial center and the residential that would have made that traffic circulation work. He explained what the intense commercial was that was going into the north at the corners on Higley and Baseline. He stated that Mr. Lake was using scare tactics when talking to the neighbors because he said that residential would be better than commercial. He explained that the reason that they let Safeway go into the corner was because they bought into a plan that was sold by one whole family. He said that they have the obligation to tell future buyers what the commitment was with this family. This deal was to make sure traffic didnâ??t go onto Claiborne and that was why the Commission approved it. Otherwise, he concluded that he wouldnâ??t have approved the zoning for Safeway without having a whole traffic analysis for the whole forty-acre piece. He stated that he didnâ??t approve of this item because this piece didnâ??t have any traffic circulation with the Safeway corner and that was not what they originally approved. He asked the applicant to bring back to the Commission the plan that Steven Earl, the attorney, brought in to the Commission and sold them. He stated that he wanted to look at that plan and those minutes to see what they had approved, versus what they are looking at with this item. He stated that this proposed development was not what they approved. Then, he concluded that they could look at the forty-acre traffic patterns and make a decision on how the whole area would fit.

Mr. Lake stated that it was his understanding that in the original plan, that parcel was not a part of the plan. He showed the visual aid and described the areas that were in the original plan. He stated that they were not changing anything to his knowledge from that plan because that parcel was just labeled “future development”.

Commissioner Stan Strom stated that the MC areas allowed for up to twenty percent for multifamily dwellings. He said they made sure they made a circulation pattern with a collector road. He said the developers didnâ??t want to abide by the old rule because it was very expensive to bring a collector road all the way through the development. Secondly, he stated that the developers tell the neighbors at their meetings that they could put multifamily homes in and they get worried about having apartments. He said they had seen some offices and other commercial at this parcel. Maybe, he stated, this might need to be made into a park. He stated that the neighbors were adamant when they approved the original plan that they not bring any more traffic down Claiborne Ave.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff informed the Staff that they and the applicant had some work to do before the May 2nd meeting. He asked the Staff to bring back the information that Commissioner Stan Strom had referred to.

Commissioner Susan Preiss stated that since she lived in this neighborhood, she would have to restrain from any comment on this item.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff explained to the audience that the meeting that evening was only for discussion with public input only. He added that Staff would make a recommendation at the next meeting on May 2nd at Town Hall at 6:00 p.m.

UP01-4: A use permit to allow the addition of a drive through window for Ritterâ??s Frozen Custard located at the northeast corner of Gilbert Road and Olive Avenue. The project is within the Bashaâ??s center at the southeast corner of Gilbert and Guadalupe, zoned C-2 (General Commercial).

Planner Aruna Vasudev stated that UP01-4 was for a use permit to allow the addition of a drive through window for Ritterâ??s Frozen Custard located at the northeast corner of Gilbert Road and Olive Avenue. The project is within the Bashaâ??s center at the southeast corner of Gilbert and Guadalupe, zoned C-2 (General Commercial). She listed some of the other retail users in the shopping center. She explained that the applicant was requesting a use permit in order for them to install a drive through window so they could extend the services offered.

Planner Aruna Vasudev pointed out that the facility did not have any indoor seating and accommodated all their customers with their outdoor seating and the nice landscape that provided shade. She stated that Staff didnâ??t have any outstanding issues. She stated that the drive through would face the inside of the center and would not face any of the residential areas. Both the exit and the entrance for the drive through would be shared access in the commercial center. She explained that the nearest residential neighborhood to the site was the Town Center Apartments and they were approximately 200â?? away from where the menu board would be located. He stated that there was also an office between this property and the residential that served as a buffer. She explained that in putting the drive through in, the applicant would need to relocate some of the landscaping to another area. She stated that Staff found that the applicant met all the necessary requirements for a use permit and that they were recommending this permit to be given.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if the Commission had any questions.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked if Staff had received any input from the neighbors.

Planner Aruna Vasudev stated that they did not receive any input from the neighbors.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if the applicant wanted to speak.

The applicant did not want to speak.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding this issue.

No one came forward.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff closed the Public Hearing and brought it back to the Commission for action.

A motion was made by Commissioner Stan Strom, seconded by Vice Chairman Joan Krueger, to approve UP01-4 subject to Staff stipulations.

Motion Carried 6-0.

The hours of operation for Ritterâ??s shall be from noon to 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday, and from noon to 11:00 P.M. Friday and Saturday.

The minimum width of the drive-through aisle shall be no less than twelve (12â??) feet at all points, except at the turning radius and the exit where it shall be maintained at minimum fifteen (15â??) feet.

The majority of the existing landscaping that are proposed to removed with this project shall be relocated as illustrated by the revised landscape plan dated April 6, 2001. The quantity and location of the landscaping shall match the aforementioned landscape plan.

The existing bike rack shall be relocated as shown on the attached Site Plan exhibit dated April 6, 2001.

All outdoor storage areas for materials, equipment, and service electrical systems (SES) shall be recessed or fully screened from view by a masonry wall of the same height of the cabinet and landscaping, or by projections of the building.

All S.E.S. panels, utility pedestals and vaults shall be painted to match the primary building color.

Except as modified herein, the project shall comply with all the final site plan conditions as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 4, 1998.

Except as modified herein, the project shall comply with the site design, landscaping, building elevations, signage, grading and drainage plans as approved by the Design Review Board on January 14, 1999.

ULDC - Amendment to the Unified Land Development Code by adopting definitions for fueling facilities and establishing additional land use regulations relating to fueling facilities.

Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks stated that item number five on the agenda was the ULDC amendment for fueling facilities. He reminded the Commission that on March 7th, they discussed this item at a Working Session. He explained that the current ULDC provision relating to fueling facilities dated back to 1983 when the Town adopted standards for minor automotive repair and service stations. Since that time, changes to retailing methods in the fueling industry, unmanned fueling facilities, new technologies with alternate fuels, and the need to accommodate future big box users necessitated an update to the ULDC. He informed the Commission that there was inconsistent terminology within the old ordinance that needed to be changed. He stated that he wanted to provide an overview of the provisions of the ULDC amendment and then turn it over to the Commission for questioning.

Mr. Fairbanks stated that there were four definitions that defined specific types of fueling facilities. Additionally, there was a definition for an unattended fueling facility that could be one of methods of operating the four types of facilities.

Mr. Fairbanks described each type of fuel facility:

Fueling Facility, Alternative: Commercial sale of propane, natural gas, electric, or other alternative fuels to be used in vehicles. Since there is an extremely low demand for this type of facility, it would be reviewed and approved by an administrative use permit. It would also be permitted in both retail and industrial districts due to its extremely low volume.

Fueling Facility: Typical retail vehicular fuel sales, vehicular fuel sales with convenience store, vehicular fuel sales with subordinate automated car wash, vehicular fuel sales with minor automotive service. An alternative fuel facility may be an accessory use to a fueling facility. The regulations pertaining to this type of facility have not changed. They are still required to be located at the intersection of two arterial streets.

Fueling Facility, Ancillary: Retail vehicular fuel sales in conjunction with a major retailing establishment greater than 100,000 square feet or subordinate fuel sales in conjunction with a full-service car wash. This newly defined use would require a use permit, but the locational requirement of being at two arterial roads is not included. This is because many of the type of memberâ??s only users including Costcoâ??s and Samâ??s Clubs are not located at the intersection of two arterial streets. A good example of this would be the Costco at Elliot and Kyrene where the fueling station was located well off the arterial road and adjacent to the building. There needs to be some tie between the major retailer and the fueling facility so a provision is included that requires the facility on the same or contiguous lot. Included are also some provisions that require a traffic impact analysis to determine appropriate stacking, location of the fueling facility and safe access to this site. There was also a provision that requires limited hours. So, the sale of the gasoline would take place during similar hours of the retailers store hours, and not on a twenty-four hour basis.

Fueling Facility, Fleet: Fuel dispensing limited to fleet vehicles such as delivery trucks, school buses, and municipal vehicles where no retail sales are conducted. There isnâ??t any guidance in the present ULDC for this type of user. This facility would need to obtain an administrative use permit which would not require a public hearing.

Fueling Facility, Unattended: This is not one of the four types of fueling facilities, rather this is a method of operation. It involves vehicular fuel dispensing where an attendant or supervising employee is not located within 100â?? of the closest fuel dispenser at all times during business hours. It must have a safety plan reviewed by the fire department. There is very detailed language about what this safety plan requires in the ordinance. It would also need an environmental hazard plan, so the operator will disclose how they intend to deal with the potential fuel spills.

Mr. Fairbanks informed the Commission that he gave them a letter that evening from Quick Trip stating their exception to the use of the term ancillary fuel facility because they believed the big box users sell quite a bit of gasoline. They have also stated that they would like a provision that an ancillary fueling facility, which is not subject to the locational requirements at arterial intersections, should be passed on to other types of facilities. Therefore, not only would Costco have the ability to locate a fueling facility off of an arterial corner, but anyone would have this opportunity.

In addition to this, attached to the Staff Report, Mr. Fairbanks explained that there was information included from David Miller with recommendations on specific requirements for ancillary fueling facilities. He stated that staff has tried to incorporate the concepts from this letter into the ordinance.

Mr. Fairbanks concluded his presentation and asked for questions from the Commission.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that he had a concern with unmanned facilities when they were talking about facilities the size of Costco. Although Costco appeared to be unmanned, they do have someone on site to react in an emergency. He explained that when a retailer was more than 100â?? away from the fueling facility, there needed to be a person on site to be there in case of a problem. He added that he felt there needed to be some language in the ordinance that once a site gets to be above a certain size, an unmanned facility would not be appropriate. He stated that a typical 7-11 or Circle K would not be considered unattended because they were closer than 100â?? from the pumps and were trained to react fairly quickly to a problem. He didnâ??t think this would happen at a Samâ??s Club or Costco if they were 1,000 feet away from the pumps.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if he lived on a street in a residence and had a CNG vehicle, could he have a CNG station right at his house.

Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks explained that the code specified that the regulations were for commercial facilities, not facilities for homeowners in a residential area.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff opened the Public Hearing and asked Rick Lloyd to come forward.

Rick Lloyd, 234 N. Central #722, Phoenix came forward. He stated that he was not opposed to the overall ordinance. He stated that his concern was the locational criteria that was referred to in Section 10.23A. He said that if that locational criteria did not apply to ancillary fuel facilities that it should not apply to other fuel facilities either. He explained that he had a hard time understanding how a 100,000 square foot retailer who is selling fuel escaped the type of regulations of a 2,500-5,000 square foot retailer that was selling gasoline. He added that if you compared the traffic volumes for the big box retailer with the volumes for a typical gas station, they would be at least equal and probably higher for the big box retailer. He stated that he didnâ??t understand why there would be fewer restrictions on the big box than on the small retailer. He concluded that he suggested the Commission to eliminate section 10.23A requiring typical retail fueling facilities to be located at the intersection of two arterial roads..

David Miller, 815 N. Gilbert Road, Gilbert came forward. He informed the Commission that he owned the Chevron Station on the corner of Gilbert and Guadalupe Road. He stated that he had a lot of disagreements on the changing of the ULDC. He was concerned about the safety of the neighborhoods around the fueling facilities and was concerned about it being fair. When he looked up the word “ancillary” in the dictionary, he found the meaning to be “supplementary”. He explained that gas was an ancillary item to his convenience store or car wash, just like it was ancillary to Samâ??s Club or Costco. He stated that if a mid-block location was available for them, than they should be available for everyone. He argued that the large retailers shouldnâ??t be given more power to compete better and unfairly. He said that in the Staff Report where it said the current ULDC lacked a comprehensive approach, he thought that this new plan also lacked a comprehensive approach. He stated that they needed to get down to some very strict guidelines, not leaving it open to a traffic engineer that doesnâ??t know the gas business. He didnâ??t think that a traffic engineer would be able to determine the traffic that would be generated by a large gas station. He stated that the Costco in Scottsdale had a disastrous situation when they located their gas facility at the entrance of their store. Because it affected their members and the traffic, they moved their facility to the back of their lot. In their more recent buildings, Costco was locating their fuel facilities back off the main entrance. He said that if the fuel facilities were appropriated located on these big box retailer sites, he would approve of it. Therefore, he felt the ordinance needed to be written with more details and specific guidelines. He read some of the comments that he had written that were included in the Staff Report. He concluded by asking the Commission to decline this ULDC amendment.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that the Townâ??s Traffic Engineer was very qualified.

Tom Bruemmer, 760 W. Ray Road, with Arco AM/PM at Cooper and Ray came forward. He stated that his gas sales were an accessory to his convenience store. He added that convenient stores were no different than a Samâ??s Club. He explained that if they were going to change the rules for one, they needed to change the rules for all. He asked the Commission to be consistent and to treat everyone equal.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked how many service stations should be at one corner.

Mr. Miller stated that there should only be two service stations at a major intersection. Good planning would be to put stations where they would pick up opposite traffic volumes. He stated that they should be placed diagonally across from each other. He referred to the Shell Station went out of business on Gilbert and Baseline because there was too much gas along Gilbert Road.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff explained that he had seen a cycle of gas stations on every corner to banks on every corner and then drug stores on every corner. He agreed that they were looking at gas stations on every corner again and it was getting to be too many.

Jordan Rose, 7272 Indian School, Scottsdale came forward. She commented that by passing this ordinance, they were just giving uniformity to the regulations and that they were still forcing all gas facilities except for alternative fueling facilities to go through the use permit process. At that time, they could decide on whether to approve the location of a gas station. She stated that the ancillary fueling station had many more requirements than typical fueling facilities and the only one that it didnâ??t have was the locational requirement at arterial streets. She stated that they would have to provide a traffic analysis, which the Town Traffic Engineer would determine where on the site the facility could be located. The environmental studies were also required for an ancillary fueling location. She added that if Samâ??s Club was required to provide an attendant at this Gilbert location, they would be agreeable to this stipulation. She added that if they wanted to stipulate where the location of the fueling facility was located, they should do this at the use permit process, not during this stage of discussion of the ULDC. She felt that the current ULDC ordinance was very clear and that they would not want to put any other restrictions in it that could be addressed during the use permit process.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if there was any one else in the public that wanted to speak. Seeing no one, he closed the Public Hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion.

Commissioner Susan Preiss asked for an example of an alternative fueling facility.

Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks stated that a propane station would be an example of an alternative fueling facility. He gave an example of a facility that was located at a current Texaco facility.

Commissioner Susan Preiss asked if they would ever exist alone without being attached to a regular fueling facility.

Mr. Fairbanks informed the Commission that the Town would have their first electric recharge facility in the next couple of months.

Commissioner Susan Preiss stated that she liked the Costco fueling set up on Kyrene. She would be happy if they could get a facility like that one through this ordinance. She felt like some of the language in the ordinance might need to be more specific.

Commissioner Dan Dodge agreed with Commissioner Preiss and stated that they donâ??t want fuel facilities to be located at the entrance of a facility. He stated that he liked some of the language that was in Mr. Millerâ??s documentation. He said that he didnâ??t know if 250â?? was the correct distance away from the entrance, but maybe they could word it to say that they needed a separate fuel facility entrance.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that he didnâ??t have a problem with the hours of operation being different than the store and could be addressed with a use permit based on a case-by-case basis. He stated that they should always be manned, if they were over 100â?? away from the fueling facility.

Commissioner Susan Preiss agreed that she would approve of a site being open outside their store business hours if it was manned.

Vice Chairman Joan Krueger stated that gasoline dispensing was not a common everyday issue and should not be treated lightly. She stated that she agreed with everyone that spoke and saw something in everyoneâ??s presentation that she would like to incorporate as they go forward. She explained that she saw a lot of ambiguity still and was concerned that if they picked at one or two things they would be doing themselves in a disservice in the long run.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab stated that the hours of operation was one of the biggest things looked at in each use permit and every fueling facility other than alternative fueling would be subjected to this process.

Vice Chairman Joan Krueger explained that she didnâ??t want to micromanage this issue simply by talking about hours of operation. She stated that she wanted to talk about the spirit of presentation of this ordinance and whether it provided everything that was needed which could then be provided in more detail by a use permit. She wanted to make sure that this would lay the groundwork that with the use permit they would have everything they needed in going forward.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that if the unattended issue was addressed that he felt it did lay the groundwork. He added that he disagreed that every gas station was the same as a Costco because of the traffic generation of a big box retailer versus a corner gas station.

Commissioner Stan Strom stated that he would be comfortable with adding the manned facility stipulation for all fuel facilities and ancillary fueling facilities. He said that he heard the discussion of the ancillary fueling facility and the fairness issues and understood their comments. The big box retailers were now being required to go into the major arterials and it would be a valid point to allow gas off the corner as long as it was a definition of 100,000 square feet or more. He stated that he wasnâ??t comfortable with allowing a smaller operator to go off the corner because the type of traffic analysis that is required for that big commercial center was very significant and would not carry forth on the smaller sites.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab addressed the concerns regarding the use permit by listing the requirements that the Commission needed to review when approving a use permit.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked if it would be proper to increase the requirements for the use permit in the ordinance since they were talking about fueling facilities.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab agreed that this would be the appropriate place to address those issues.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that they would want a written report addressing sufficient stacking for anticipated levels of use and impact on alternative entrances. He stated that he would feel comfortable if they added some more use permit requirements for the ancillary fueling facilities.

Commissioner Susan Preiss asked the Commission if they felt like the ancillary fueling facility category could be applied to smaller gas stations.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab stated that ancillary was described in the ordinance and the Commission was free to change what was written.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that the concept they were trying to come up in this definition was fueling facilities attached to very large retailers. The description of this could be called something else, but the concept would be the same.

Commissioner Stan Strom stated that at Williams Field there was a gas station that was proposed that would need to share a light at a residential collector that would propose a conflict. He added that this could cause confusion in the future in some developments.

Mr. Miller stated that he didnâ??t feel like there should ever be a gas station located on the collector that fed into a residential development.

Commissioner Stan Strom stated that on the General Plan since 1984, a big spot in this area was listed for commercial. He added that based on Mr. Millerâ??s comments, they couldnâ??t put a gas station in this large commercial site because homes have been placed behind it.

Mr. Fairbanks stated that the ordinance was written to say that that any regular gas station would go at the intersection of two arterial streets. Only the big box user, which he envisioned would only be three or four more developments in the next twenty years in the community, would have more discretion on where they would be located. He added that Mr. Millerâ??s comments were not part of the ordinance, they were attached to the Staff Report for information only.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab stated that many of the concerns that were being discussed could be addressed during the use permit because a big box retailer would change the dynamics of any street that it was next to.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that he would like to see some more stringent use permit requirements. He stated that the use permit must provide documentation that there would be sufficient stacking, must provide an impact analysis on adjacent residential traffic and the entrance to the gasoline ancillary fuel facility shall not be co-located with the primary entrance.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab explained that since these were very unique factors relating to fueling facilities that those issues should be kept within this ordinance and that they would need to be addressed in the use permit process.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that he would like to see a safety plan on all ancillary fuel facilities or all unmanned fueling facilities. He added that he would be open to getting rid of all the unmanned facilities, except for when the attendant is less than 100â?? away from the pumps.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab reminded the Commission that fleet facilities were also typically unmanned. She stated that from a legal perspective, she thought they would want to keep this category. If they would like to see all ancillary facilities attended, she stated that they could add that into the ordinance.

Commissioner Susan Preiss asked the Commission for clarification on adding a requirement for a safety plan and environmental plan to every type of facility.

There was agreement on this issue.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab summarized the motion based on the discussion the Commission had on the issue. She stated that the Commission was voting to recommend approval of the ULDC amendment with additional conditions under ancillary fuel facilities relating to addressing stacking concerns, impact on adjacent residential developments and that the entrance and exit to the ancillary fuel facilities shall assure safe ingress and egress from and from the main entrance to the retail complex. Fuel facilities and ancillary fuel facilities shall not be unattended. Safety plans and environmental plans shall be required for all fueling facilities.

A motion was made by Commissioner Stan Strom, seconded by Vice Chairman Joan Krueger, to approve the ULDC Ordinance amendment for fueling facilities, adding the additional conditions under ancillary fuel facilities relating to addressing stacking concerns, impact on adjacent residential developments and safe entrance and exit to the ancillary fuel facility from the main entrance to the retail complex. Fueling facilities and ancillary fueling facilities shall not be unattended. Safety plans and environmental plans shall be required for all fueling facilities.

Motion Carried 6-0.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff paused the meeting for a five-minute break.

General Plan Overview

Senior Planner Geir Sverdrup stated that they were 25 days into the 60-day General Plan review period. He stated that they had not seen any major comments come back that would require any drastic changes to the plan. He added that they had got some comments back from Maricopa County that recommended some minor changes to some policies throughout the document.

He said that they had about 300 copies out for the public to review. The biggest issue that had come to fruition was the San Tan Generating Station and they were working with the Council to draft a response to make sure the people who live around this station understood exactly what the General Plan would do and cannot do. He concluded by asking for comments or questions from the Commission.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that the at the Council meeting the night before, the citizens asked for a summery of changes from the last General Plan to this one. He suggested that the little packet that was given to them during a Working Session could be modified for the public with the map so they could see some of the major commercial changes.

Senior Planner Geir Sverdrup stated that they would formalize the working maps that he brought to the Commission at the Working Session so they could have a graphic to hand out to the public to show the amendments requested by the general public and the changes that Staff had made to the existing General Plan.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff recommended that the public put all comments in writing to Mr. Sverdrup.

Senior Planner Geir Sverdrup stated that he had asked for all requests and changes to be put in writing and given to him via e-mail, writing letters or by adding comments into the web site.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked the public that was still present at the meeting if they had any specific questions regarding the General Plan that they needed addressed.

Someone in the audience stated they were interested in the discussions on the General Plan.

Senior Planner Geir Sverdrup explained that they would be talking about this issue again at the Working Session with the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 16. He explained that the first Public Hearing would be held on June 6. The second Public Hearing would be held on June 15. The June 20 meeting would be for the Planning and Zoning Commission to make a recommendation to the Town Council. He stated that they were working with the Town Clerk to set the Work Study Session with the Town Council sometime before the June 20 Planning and Zoning Meeting. Then the first Town Council Public Hearing would be on June 26. The next meeting with the Council would be on July 10 for recommendations for the actual plan. The final action meeting would be on November 6. He concluded that there was ample opportunity for Public Input.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked when the next task force meeting was scheduled.

Senior Planner Geir Sverdrup stated that they would schedule this meeting when they had sufficient comments from the reviewing agencies and the public. He added that anyone could go to the web site and find a schedule of all the public meetings that were scheduled.

Commissioner Dan Dodge clarified to the public that they were in the process of having meetings regarding the plan and that they encouraged public input. He clarified the process of how the public could get involved as described earlier by Mr. Sverdrup.

Commissioner Stan Strom stated that he was an outspoken person regarding the county residents that came to the meetings and wanted to impose their growth ordinances but donâ??t want to be a part of the Gilbert community. He added that the area at Lindsay and Williams Field were major areas surrounded by county and low density. Under the normal process, an application would have to be made and it could be done twice a year for no fee. If you wanted to bring it on in any General Plan amendment it was a minimum fee of $5,000 plus all the other zoning and those types of costs. He stated that as he understood it, this applicant had some neighborhood meetings and they were shot down. They then came back and applied through this process with no fees and to some degree have slipped through the process. He stated that he would like to look at this again to see how it fit into the plan. He stated that he was concerned that this applicant had not played on an even field.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff clarified that the next meeting that they would be discussing the General Plan was on May 16.

Senior Planner Geir Sverdrup stated that was correct. He added that Arizona was the only state in the Union that required the General Plan to be approved by the populous.

COMMUNICATIONS

A Report from the Chairman on current events.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that he felt a responsibility to future residential people that are adjacent to commercial to help them be heard before the residents live there. He explained that in several cases the zoning was already granted and the residents didnâ??t have any more input to it because it was out of their hands. He stated that they needed to put themselves in their shoes and look out for their interests.Subcommittee Reports.

Vice Chairman Joan Krueger stated that she missed the last Trails meeting. Planning Manager Maria Cadavid discussed some of the issues that were addressed at the meeting and informed the Commission that there was another meeting scheduled on April 19.

Report from the Planning Director on current events.

Since Planning Director Jerry Swanson was not present, Planning Manager Linda Edwards gave the report. She discussed the ULDC and stated that the management team was meeting weekly to look at the matrix for the uses in each of the zoning districts. She stated that it will look very different and will look more in line with the land use categories in the new General Plan. She stated that they would be bringing the Commission in to work with them in about three or four weeks.

Ms. Edwards stated that the Planning Department was very busy and had from three to eight new projects a week just in pre-applications. She stated that it was a very busy, dedicated Staff.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if target densities were discussed.

Ms. Edwards stated that there had been discussion about not putting in a target density and if it was needed would they need two categories.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if the philosophy of buffering was built into this plan.

Ms. Edwards stated that standards for buffering were included in this.

Vice Chairman Joan Krueger asked for a list of meetings that will be taking place in May and June.

Ms. Edwards stated that they would get this list to them.

Commissioner Stan Strom asked if they could take ten to fifteen minutes before the next meeting to look at the big picture of the growth in Gilbert. He asked to see aerial shots of the whole area and the areas that were being developed around them.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab stated that they would look to put it on the next meeting.

Planning Manager Maria Cadavid stated that the first meeting in July would be the time that the Commission would elect the Chairman and membership. She asked the Commission to start thinking about this issue.

ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.

Chairman Kohlhoff

ATTEST:

Recorder Trasie Johns

Digg this